They do. I was pointing out the highest risk exposure segments by hours. It levels off after 1,000 hours.... drops again after 1,500 hours and stay fairly level until around 15,000-20,000 hours where there is a slight rise again and then it levels off again. visit www.aopa.org ans type Nall Report in the search box. Very interesting reading.

Instructing as a CFII and MEI was some of the most rewarding flying because you actually had a guy in the left seat trying to kill you but gaining priceless experience at the same time. For those who were offended by the post that you're flying around in the right seat watching the guy in the left don't be. I loved instructing and didn't need it for time building but essentially you are exactly as a metor once called me "Just In Case." Instrument and Multi students already know how to fly you are just there in case something happens or the student freaks out in actual because he cant peep out the sides of the foggles anymore. Don't get me wrong this is no bash the CFI route but rather enjoy your time sitting over there and use it merely to figure out new ways to craft your skill, new ways to trim the airplane to do what you want so you look like a pro to your student. Trust me some days I rather be there than 500 feet a/p on FLC and climb check. Your experience as flight instructor is the last of REAL flying unless your in a G1000 cockpit, have fun and bask in the moment.


FL450

At the risk of sounding elitist, one shouldn't be in the cockpit of an airliner conducting 121 operations until holding an ATP. Or in lieu of that, a single pilot, multi-eng, IFR letter. For 99% of all those people clamoring for that 1000hrs, there are plenty of SINGLE engined airplanes in which they wouldn't survive 3 times around the patch. Is that who we want flying OUR family? Inexperienced pilots are a huge liability to the entire industry. For all those 300 hour wonders waiting to flame me, talk to me after you've spent a couple of seasons flying part 135 in a Navajo for Ameriflight. Oh, wait, you don't have the hours for that.

Please, judging from your elitist attitude you sound like one of those CAs that tell their FOs to level off at 500fpm instead of 1000. I agree that we shouldn't have 200 wonders however ATP mins is exaggerated for right seat RJ. And there is no need to be a freight dog as well. The mins aren't magical numbers, they are determined by insurance based on risk. Single engine freight which is probably the hardest flying is still 1200 hours.

What we need is a tougher training like they do the rest of the world. That would help weed out a lot that are in it for something other than flying and help with the SJS pandemic. To hold even a commercial/atp in Europe for example is very difficult. In China, you have to renew your license every 6 months. Any monkey can go from private to ATP here, all you need is flight time. I bet those guys from pinanacle that 410ed it on the CRJ2 would have probably survived if they actually knew what they were doing up there or had some general knowledge of how a jet airplane flys.

"Please, judging from your elitist attitude you sound like one of those CAs...."

Nah, J1b, you hit the nail on the head. There will be a lot of squealing from stuck pigs for this reason or that. But I think you got it right on. (mod hat off).

But as to the tougher training BUR mentions, I couldn't agree more.

BURflyer,
What do you mean about elitist Captains telling FO's to "level off at 500 fpm instead of 1000fpm"?
Are you talking about climb or descent rates? In a pressurized or unpressurized airplane? I'm kinda confused here as I'm a single engine unpressurized 135 guy. With 3500tt in AK. I'm not sure what you are talking about, but I was taught that passengers respond physiologically better when they are subjected to less than 500fpm altitude changes (descent). Kids and babies, around 200fpm. Especially with head colds or dental problems. I'm lost. Are you always pressurized when descending?

I'm talking about leveling off in pressurized flight. Usually we takeoff and land pressurized. I was just implying that there is no noticable discomfort unless you're leveling off at a 2000fpm rate of climb or decent.

Thanks BURflyer. I don't spend too much time up high so that stuff is pretty foreign to me. Have tried to stick to that advice about 500fpm or less though for descents when able. Have noticed more squawling when I was'nt able to when flying with little ones back there.
Cheers,

Sure are a lot of 300 hr wonders flying as C-130, C-5, C-17, B-52, KC-135, etc., etc. Copilots all around the world, in combat, etc. Some fly fighters. I was a combat IP with 900 hours total time (including 220 from UPT). It's not total time, its quality of training and depth of experience.

Land Pressurized man thats gotta hurt the ears when that relief valve opens:eek: I guess all my training on pressuriztion was a waste:rolleyes:

I guess so.

Depends on the airplane maverick.

I think it's how much experience you have with regard to what type of flying you're going to be doing.

If I were hiring for an airline that only flew F-15's, I wouldn't hire a 55 yr old civilian guy with 20,000 hrs and 7 type ratings, I'd hire the 27 year old with 1500 hours in the F-15.

If I were an NFL owner that needed a Quarterback, I wouldn't draft a kicker to do the job.

FF

Right Rudder is over-rated anyway.

I agree with your post 110%. You can be trained by the best, and fly the hottest flying toaster in the sky, but each of us (should) learn more and more each year/each flight during our career...that IMHO makes us better pilots.

Good post,

FF

I agree, this dude is a joke. To think that you must hold an ATP before being a professional pilot whom you as a PAX will trust in the crew is RIDICULOUS

Was this thread about being the ace of the base, or rationalizing how HR (i.e. non-pilot) at airline X makes an arbitrary decision about who gets an interview?

experience equals experience.

hours allow the opportunity for experience.

theres been a time with everyone where you just have...a flight. nothing special, memorable, or worthy of remembering.

of course, everyone cant keep track of all aspects of a flight...so we just zero it down to a number.

im not defending low timers or high timers...im just saying that a number speaks nothing as to the character of the pilot.

There are a great many higher level examples of why experience is better. I have two specific examples I have learned in my short 3 years sitting in the right seat in the 121 world (before this I had 1,400 hrs dual given and about 1,200 hrs single-pilot IFR 135).

This cannot be directly correlated, however, I see two recurring things with captains that had little to no flight instructing before jumping into the air-carrier pond.

1) They micromanage like hell. The only micro-managers I have flown with did not flight instruct before flying 121. I figure by not flight instructing they didn't learn that it is ok to let the other person fly the plane a little different (as long as it is safe and within standards). I had one captain that was making glideslope low call-outs on me when we were 30 miles away in visual conditions (I was half a dot low). I was stabilized and waiting for the flaps to come in and balloon us up (which I was planning on doing around 12 miles).

2) I consistently see crooked landings from non-cfi captains. When I was instructing I learned a common mistake all pilots make is to not pull the yoke straight back in the flare. They ended up throwing a little bit of roll into things and compensated with rudder. These captains never had the opportunity to see this and learn from it and thus they aren't able to recognize when they do it. By the way, these landings are within standards and safe, they are just sloppy, so I don't mention anything (I am not going to nit-pick any captains, especially ones that are already trying to micromanage me).

...All very valid points. Additionally, I believe the almighty power of the $ speaks when it comes to experience. INSURANCE. Many companies (corporate, charter, cargo and airline segments of the industry) set their minimums according to what their insurance companies advise. In the corporate world where I fly, I know a pilot with an ATP is about 30% cheaper to insure than a pilot with, say, only 1000 hours.

I can only imagine the insurance costs for companies whose new-hires average less than 1,000 total time. Big-time $. Higher time = less $ to insure. Lower time = more $ to insure.

The mighty $ speaks volumes ladies and gentlemen.

HR doesn't have a surefire way of knowing the kind of flying or experience your may have gained from it, unless you have had a previious 121 or 135 job. So hours are the only way to judge experience and a 1000 hour pilot is more experienced than a 400 hour pilot. Flying skills are another thing that can't be judged from a resume. You might think with your 500 hours that your the mac daddy but with 3000 you will be better. BTW, I am the ace of the base! That being said we've all seen 10,000 hour guys that couldn't compete with students we've just soloed, and the same people freak with a master warning.

I remember feeling invisible at 500TT with about 150 of dual given. Once I hit 1000 and got into my first jet I remember looking back and thinking man i didnt know anything at 500. Same thing at 1500TT. Now at 2300 with an upgrade around the corner Im still thinking the same "Boy glad i didnt have to make this or that descision when i only had 500TT or 1200TT it could have very well been the wrong one." Im sure ill think the same when get 4 or 5000TT, honestly I hope i never stop feeling that way. When these Tcat jets are certified it is under the consensus that an average pilot with average skills can perform the reqired manuever. (ie v1 cut) Thus the whole point of having to get a type rating. There is no doubt in my mind that after a certain amount of time in type a guy with 500TT could fly a jet to the same standards of a guy with 5000TT. Flying is the easy part, what cannot be taught in a classroom or sim is descision making skills. I think you can only gain that experience through experience IE flight time. This is only my opinion im sure ill get a little flame for it oh well.

Actually I think that's a pretty good point. In any airplane you push forward and the trees get bigger, and you pull back and they get smaller. It's the decision making skills that are lacking with low time pilots. With VERY low time pilots there's a deficit of both stick/rudder and decision making skills. You don't know what you don't know until you get more experience...If you can realize that fact, then you should be able to figure out when it's time to advance. For most people, 500 hours is not that time. There will always be exceptions to the rule...

As a former low-time-pilot, and low time captain, i have experience with both being lower time (was 700TT when hired) and flying with low time pilots, guys as wet as a commercial multi. Honestly, if i had to put money on who was going to perform when the time came around, i'd put my money on the guy with 1000Hrs, vs. the guy with 250. The decision making skills are a big difference, and as stated, stick and rudder can make a difference also.

What i'd say makes the difference is experience. And each different experience set brings something unique to the table. A guy straight out of training, has the knowledge of a mostly competent other pilot in the airplane, may have very little pilot in command experience, little real world weather experience, etc. The 1000hr CFI will probably have some more PIC responsibility on the resume', more well rounded flying, and possibly more emergency experiences. A guy hauling checks single pilot, IFR will have more experience than either of the other two.

If you look at other careers, it's all about experience too. I think what makes pilots different is that the standards are so over the board that no-one knows what they'd consider "typical" or "standardized". Commercial pilot license is the minimum, but because our Unions have never placed any requirement, say, a journeyman position, or a tier that you had to ascend in order to break into the industry, then the companies will hire at what they want and we'll be bickering about it forever. My wife's cousin is in training to be a plumber. He apparnetly finished one of his tests, has a job with a plumbing company, and will be an "apprentice" for the next four years while he's building experience to be a licensed plumber. Apparently, some guy who worked for this company before told individuals that he WAS a plumber, before being certified, and the company quickly fired him. So, Mr. Cousin-in-law was quick to tell us that know, he's not a plumber, but a plumber-in-training. Maybe we need that as well...I think the order will go.

-Super Captain (we might have to come up with another one above this to feed egos)....they'll get five stripes
-Captain (four stripes)
-Pilot (three stripes)
-Pilot-in-training (two stripes)
Benchwarmer (no stripes) you're one below the flight attendant...maybe given during training.

I don't think hours matter all that much. It's quality, not quantity that matters.

I have just over 8000 hours. I fly with guys who have >16,000 hours. Are they twice as good even if I have more turbojet PIC?

I know an Airbus A319 FO who has just over 1200TT of which 700 is international, overwater, class 2 nav time in the A319.

Is he better than a CFI with 2000 hours who's total time is in piston a/c?

First of all, you have to define "better".

Is he more knowledgable and more experienced?

I'd say so!

AL

The mindset of our service men and woman is second to none when it comes to training and duty. I only wish that our newest generation of whinny, give me give me give me entitled punks would take a moment to grasp what you have written.

[QUOTE]
He is certainly more knowledgeable about international, overwater, class 2 nav stuff.........but I'm sure the 2000TT CFI is more knowledgeable about a whole different aspect of flying.

I only point this out to agree with you btw. Just as it is difficult to define what "better" is - I'd ask what type of flying is "better"?

USMCFLYR

If you keep pulling back, eventually the trees get bigger again.

I would say that 4 hours in a saab is much more valuable than 4 hours in a CR9. 4 cycles vs. 1, so 1000 hours in the saab is equal to 250 in an rj, and your experience argument in terms of hours goes right out the window, infraction please:D

Isn't the Saab like flying a glorified seminole? You just fly around smashing bugs all day. The 9 however...the 9 is AWESOME! :p

Infraction???
I'm hoping what you said is accurate!:D
I got a majority of my flight hours about 1.2 at a time!
I'm hoping alot of people feel the same way you do.

USMCFLYR

What is the majors take on Turbine PIC time in an Air Tractor, Hold the Holy Grail of the 1000 TPIC in the Air Tractor, am currently an F/O on the Dash 8.

The problem with this statement is that there will be a point of diminishing returns. The learning curve will never continue exponentially upward. While we are all indeed still learning, no matter our experience level, an individual can only be so good, and only retain so much knowledge.

One way to look at this is to put a whole bunch of pilots on paper, in a line-up in order of experience (hours) relative to a particular operation. For this case, let's say a flight from A to B in your typical regional jet. Would you put your wife and kids on the plane with a captain who just upgraded at ATP mins and the FO has 600 TT, or would you pick the most experienced people to fly your family? (if you fit in either of those categories, don't take this personally)

I'm sure the post was just trying to match the ridiculousness of comparing Slob time with ResetJet time. Hours aren't the same no matter how you slice-em. It depends on what you do with these hours of experience.

I'd take the guy with 600TT because if my son or daughter were to go up front after the flight they could all talk Gameboys, Playstations, and Nintendos. :D

That is assuming the 600TT guy didn't have a panic attack when the master warning decided to complain at him. :eek:

The way training is in the US is very different to that of other countries. The FAA at ATP level, doesn't prepare you for overwater international ops because they assume your first gig will be domestic overland ops only. International flying is a different ballgame and a lot of guys in the US won't see it until they've already logged thousands of hours in regional jets, if at all. My point here is that the learning curve is much steeper in the early days for pilots overseas. I logged 1350 hours piston time in Florida before I got a regional job. It would have been beneficial for me to trade in the light trainers a lot sooner for something bigger with more sophisticated ops. Any industrial psychologist will tell you, you should be proficient after a few hundred hours of the same operation.

AL

AL

The way it's going, A LOT of guys won't see international until after logging thousands of hours in narrow body/domestic/North American operations.

Unless you have a side gig like Bruce Dickinson or John Travolta.

AL

Very true, but even though BD did his training here in states, if I'm not mistaken we was able to take advantage of the European style SSTR program to get him his first job, then the second flying the 757.

He did but the JAA ATPL is no walk in the park.

AL